The Agency of Art and a Dualistic Reality: Film as Hierophany Through Subject/Object Confusion – Julie Reich

In a segment of the article Film as Hierophany, Michael Bird discusses French philosopher Mikel Dufrenne’s theological examination of culture and the relationship between art and reality. Particularly, Dufrenne introduces the notion that an intrinsic ‘transcendence’ is embedded within the core of reality, namely a Real underlying the real (Bird, M., 8). Accordingly, the Real implores ‘disclosure’, art is the expressive mediator and an encounter with this facet of the Real is an aesthetic experience that directs the spectator “beyond the level of reflection to the level of feeling” (Bird, M., 8). In effect, a transformation from a “phenomenological analysis of aesthetic experience…to an ontological or transcendent analysis” occurs (Bird, M., 8). In particular, feeling is described as uniquely independent from ‘presence’ and thereby indicates a shift in the subject’s attitude (Bird, M., 8); a transformation extracts a new outlook.

Additionally, it can be asserted that Dufrenne’s reality or “the real” is personified, whereby “the real” possesses distinctive qualities typically characteristic of human beings. For instance, the author illustrates this conception of the relationship between art and reality and remarks that subjectivity is attributed to “the real” insofar as an awareness of its meaning is an adaptive means to perpetuate or reveal itself (Bird, M., 8). Moreover, he indicates that Dufrenne’s depiction suggests a consciously aware entity exists as a dualistic property of reality, which filters itself through the agency of art as a means of communication with the spectator whereby a response is fundamentally expected (Bird, M., 8). Ultimately, cognitive abilities that facilitate temporal awareness, that relate to object permanence (awareness that things exist despite always being able to see them), that infer consciousness and that insinuate an ability to reason are attached to “the real”. According to these propositions, not only does the notion of expectation act to personify embodiment of the ‘depth’ of reality, but a fatalistic or deterministic implication potentially exists, since the bond between aesthetic and religious experience is therefore inescapable. In essence, a dualistic explanation of the material world, explained as transcendence mediated through the agency of art, serves to reinforce validity of religious element infused with reality by depicting aesthetic experience as synonymous to religious experience. Accordingly, the relationship drawn between ‘the real’ and subjectivity suggests Dufrenne’s personification of a transcendent reality is reinforced through appeal to familiar description and through confusion between subject/object qualification. Especially since ‘feelings’ in a general sense, are understood as emotions with unexplainable depth, Dufrenne’s appeal to experiences that trigger an experience ‘beyond’ the realm of the mind to the realm of feeling (Bird, M., 8), function as a widely ‘relatable’ tool that appeals to diverse audiences. Ultimately, an appeal to variation of religious experience is being promoted.

Within the confines of Bird’s article, an argument denoting the possibility of a religious experience triggered within a non-religious context demonstrates manifestation of the sacred, hierophany. Effectively, it is suggested that a dualistic ontological appeal attempts to validate the existence of an inherent religious experience since a fundamental consequence of communication between film and the spectator is suggested to be sacred.

Moreover, since Dufrenne proposes, “Art’s mission is to express this meaning-we must say that reality or nature wills art” (Bird, M., 9), not only is subjectivity attributed through personification of “the real” (since art is suggested to be synonymous with a subject driven by a particular cause, motive or purpose) but conversely, art is depicted to also embody qualities of an object, since it depends on the spectator to fully realize its potential. Essentially, a general understanding of an autonomous, subjective existence with motivational intention or purpose conflicts with or contradicts the required interrelationship Dufrenne outlines between the spectator and ‘Art’. Seemingly, confusion between active participant and passive recipient within the context of Dufrenne’s encounter with a real underlying the Real displays an inherent contradiction. Accordingly, art must then be re-defined according to these propositions, and therefore, its understanding must conform to support Dufrenne’s framework. However, logic that dictates art cannot be subjective is problematic. Ergo, do the implications suggest that nature does not will the spectator or vice versa, but rather, nature wills art and the spectator is a mere passive mediator? If such is the case, who has the authority to designate the guidelines pertaining to qualification of ‘art’? Essentially, is universality of the eligibility of art not inherently confounded by subjectivity itself? Is the purpose of art explicitly known and universal? Additionally, since it is overtly stated that “the real” is not a passive dimension (Bird, M., 8), is the spectator a passive recipient of the real? Ultimately, according to suggestions in Bird’s (1991) article, the question whether a feeling is independent of or limited by the will of art requires further speculation and could potentially be used to reduce the validity of his claims.

Works Cited

Bird, Michael, “Film as Hierophany” from Religion in Film, Pp. 98-106, Routledge, 1991.